I thought it would be a good idea to use this posting as an opportunity to present some preliminary ideas for my final paper and hopefully receive some feedback.
Recently I have been reading Moral Politics by George Lakoff [1]. His basic premise is that the disparity between liberal and conservative worldviews can be attributed to subconscious metaphors that provide the basis for people’s moral thinking. Furthermore, these metaphors serve as the governing principle for people’s decisions. Examining these metaphors, therefore, will lead to an understanding of the assumptions people have when making moral decisions. Lakoff shows that strict father morality is the undergirding principle that much of conservative Christianity subscribes to. Furthermore, he points out that the rhetoric of biblical authority and God’s law as used today is nothing more than the projection of strict father morality onto God. I intend to show how this governing metaphor has drastic implications for human rights and equality.
I will focus primarily on Lakoff’s description of strict father morality which he claims is the underlying metaphor governing conservative ideology. It should be noted that Lakoff is a cognitive scientist and his research focuses primarily on Radial Categories which cannot be defined by a list of properties shared by all members of the category. Instead, “they are characterized by variations on a central model.”[2] What this means is that strict father morality is a central category and not all who identify as conservative will fall strictly into this category but will derive their tenets based upon this central category. There will be many variations on the central model and though the process is complex these variations are systematically derived from the central model. “The theory of radial categories claims that variations should be systematic in a certain way, determined by the application of parameters of variation to the central model.”[3]
Lakoff points out that strict father morality is comprised of several metaphors which are not unique to it. These metaphors are found in other cultures throughout the world. It is the prioritization and organization of these metaphors that yield the strict father morality system.
Lakoff also shows that strict father morality functions at a subconscious level and is not readily known by its adherents. Thus, the decisions and moral outlook based on the metaphors that comprise the strict father system are seen as common sense and part of the natural order.
My hypothesis is that within a Christian framework this system of morality is viewed as originating from God and seen as a divine command. Thus, God becomes the ultimate enforcer of a morality that has drastic consequences for social and economic justice. In my opinion, creating an awareness of the underlying systems of morality will help to create a plurality of options for change as well as downplay absolutism and radical dualism. In addition, if we can understand how the mind categorizes it will help alleviate the projection of cognitive creations onto God or nature, and hopefully bring about the recognition that ultimate claims are spurious.
[1] George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002).
[2] Lakoff, Moral Politics, 8.
[3] Lakoff, Moral Politics, 285.
Posts
Seth,
ReplyDeleteYou and I have discussed this issue at length in person, but I suppose the blog provides as useful a forum for discussing my thoughts on this topic as anywhere else.
It sounds like Lakoff engages in something resembling a categorical bifurcation (i.e., "Strict Father" vs. "Nurturing Parent") that is itself loaded or problematic on many levels, at least as you described it. This is the primary focus of this response.
1) The idea that these are "variations on a central model" sounds like it could be a cop-out. Even though I have no idea what his data is, I wonder if this is a way of maintaining quasi-reified categories that don't stand up to criticism. Is it possible that there are several other metaphors that Lakoff overlooks and places under the umbrella of these two?
2) The bifurcation here is strictly liberal-conservative that ignores the many nuances that lie in these very diverse camps. "Compassionate Conservatives" and "Reagan Democrats" come to mind as things that complicate Lakoff's dualism.
3) The labels that Lakoff applies to these metaphors is possibly the most loaded element of all. "Nurturing Parent" is undoubtedly phrased in a way so as to appear more congenial to Lakoff's readers: it is non-sexist, it understands itself as being more concerned with "real-world feelings" as opposed to the archaic stoicism of the emotionless authoritarian. None of this can be said about the label "strict father." In this sense, it is clear that Lakoff's work is prescriptive as much as it is descriptive. The former element is both open to extensive critique and unlikely to convince outsiders, if largely because it works within a self-contained system of logic that allows little room for advocates of the "strict father" or some other metaphor to work within.
I might further ask if the gender of the strict parent is essential to the metaphor, if it functions as a polemical device by Lakoff (i.e., to appeal to anti-sexist liberals), or a combination of the two.
As I've said before, this is totally something worth pursuing. It bears considerable explanatory power from my experience. It's also possible that much of this has been addressed by Lakoff in his book already. It's difficult to respond to something as complex as this without have read it thoroughly.
I'll try to have longer run-on sentences next time.
Seth, I haven't read Lakoff's book, but what you wrote of his premise, that "the disparity between liberal and conservative worldviews can be attributed to subconscious metaphors that provide the basis for people’s moral thinking", seems redundant. Aren't subconscious metaphors part of a worldview?
ReplyDeleteThe strict father metaphor is based on the view that the world is a dangerous and hostile place. If it was not, then discipline would not be so necessary for survival. But if the metaphor depends on at least some other fragment of a worldview, such as the idea that the world is a dangerous, hostile place, how can the metaphor alone, without the other part of the worldview that it depends on, explain the difference between whole worldviews?
The conservatives I grew up with did seem to assume that God is the ultimate strict father, but it was not unconscious, at least in the most obvious applications. People openly said that, as God is strict with us because he loves us, so fathers ought to be strict with the children they love and all other authorities ought to be strict with the people they have authority over. I'm not sure that they would agree that this metaphor is an inaccurate projection of a human idea onto God. Some people really believe that this is what the (absolutely true, every word dictated by God) Bible says about God and the way humans ought to relate to each other, so they actually seem to see it more as a divine plan given to humans.
Mothers were supposed to be strict too, but you can't have an authoritarian family with two equal leaders and the fathers were the ultimate decision makers and enforcers. The gender of the strict parent is important, because in this worldview one of the reasons commonly given for why men should have authority over women is that Jesus was a man and spoke of God as his father, so they say God is more like men than women. Another common argument, that Adam (male) was made in the image of God to serve God, while Eve was made from Adam to serve Adam, makes the same assumption. The conservatives I knew, and even many more moderate people, saw referring to God in anything but male terms as heresy. It has to be the strict father metaphor, because no one who really believes it would argue that God was the ultimate strict mother.
Thanks for the interesting topic.
I might just add, that as a stay-at-home dad, I too have problems with his anti-male attitude expressed here. Just as people criticize conservative evangelical women for being anti-woman, I think it is appropriate then to categorize Lakoff's categories as anti-male.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Lakoff is that he sets up yet another insurmountable dualism, a battle between two worlds and ways of life. For those of us, for varying reasons, who have to live in both worlds, we know better. It's not easy; it's not comfortable; but it is possible.
I'm not in this class, but surfe hear via Jimmy McCarthy's blog.
Seth thank you for the interesting ideas. I found it curious to call the strict father morality a metaphor and that it was not something that is in the open and acknowledged. I've only seen it operate in the open.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm understanding the premise of the book in question, the author theorizes that there is a strict dichotomy between conservative/”strict father” morality and liberal/”nurturing parent” theology in the mainstream Christian world views. I must agree with David Henson's assessment that “The problem with Lakoff is that he sets up yet another insurmountable dualism, a battle between two worlds and ways of life.” This dual view seems to be a common theme among those who want to describe or diagnose what's wrong with the world today, specifically from a socio-religious viewpoint. As David also points out, we must live in a world that is not so clearly defined as this dualism indicates. As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that many of the problems humans have encountered throughout history have been the result of the attempt to draw clear lines between world views and label them “good” and “bad” or “us” and “them.”
ReplyDeleteAs a person who has walked a spiritual path that has taken me into interesting byways that included a huge pendulum swing from the perception of God as “male” deity to “female” deity, circling into a duality concept in which deity took on a fully male AND fully female guise, and finally falling into what seems to be a more “centered” perception of God as genderless yet encompassing all things including gender, I have come to think that perhaps persistent insistence upon drawing lines between such polarities is not only be redundant, but also almost useless. I'm not sure attempting to make people aware of the underlying psychological reasoning for their perception of deity and, therefore, their moral code, will make any difference. If they aren't asking about it, they won't be listening to any answers. One example of this comes, in my mind, from the advertising world today. Most people in America today are fully aware that models are unnaturally thin, their photographs are manipulated to remove blemishes, their hair is colored or extended, lips and other body parts are enhanced, and in most circumstances, models are much younger than they are portrayed to be in the ads. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the viewing public knows these things, despite the fact that the public is also aware of much of the psychology behind advertising choices from timing to musical accompaniment, the viewing public is still the purchasing public. Young (and older) women still feel inadequate when compared to these manufactured beauties. I think the same would apply to the idea of making believers aware of the psychological reasoning behind their predominate moral decision-making process.
Blatant attempts at creating paradigm shifts among people rooted in a belief system are, I think, perceived to be contrived and synthetic. Changes in world-view among large populations have to seem to come naturally, to be organic, so to speak. After all, as cultures change through time, so do their concepts of the world and of the behavior expected within a society. As a member of my conference's Commission on the Status and Role of Women in the Church (COSROW), I am part of a group that supports the attempt to make language shifts toward inclusiveness in liturgical and biblical language. It's a particularly difficult challenge as we realize the need to keep the language genuine, natural and honest even while shifting from the predominate androcentric bent of the existing language base. This is a task that began many years ago, and will continue for some time to come; for not only does it meet with resistance from those who are encultured by the “father” language, but it also must not be a sudden, contrived and unnatural occurrence.
Nevertheless, Seth, I believe your overall intention to “show how this governing metaphor has drastic implications for human rights and equality”is a valid avenue to pursue. Discovering the implications of how what clergy and educators actually teach the constituency and then applying what has been learned to create a valid teaching method that will improve the way religion and subsequent morality affects the social reality is an important theological task.
Not that I really know anything at this point. Just my opinion:-)
For an empirical approach, you might be interested in a 2006 study by Baylor University entitled "American Piety in the 21st Century." They try to show correlations between certain ethical views and how people conceive of God, based on four god-types: Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical, and Distant. The study can be found at: http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
ReplyDeleteIt is a great hypothesis, but its easier to deal with black and white (absolutes) than to deal with the various shades of grey. Metaphors are anthropomorphic projections onto the divine, but they are also the cornerstone of faith.
ReplyDelete